NEW STUDY SHOWS DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN EPISCOPALIANS
AND ANGLICANS

The universally esteemed non-partisan Pew Research Center recently released its "Religious Landscape Study" in which it surveyed 35,000 Americans about their religious beliefs (find it here ). The study considered general factors then broke down respondents by denomination. "Episcopalians" and "Anglicans" were treated as separate denominations in the study. This new study gives us the first scientific survey of the differences of Americans who identify with these two entities.

The meaning of "Episcopalian" is obvious, a member of the Episcopal Church. However, Pew did not define "Anglican." Presumably they meant members of the various independent churches in America that use the word "Anglican" in heir titles even though they are not officially Anglican. To be an Anglican, one has to be in communion withe the Archbishop of Canterbury. As we all know the Archbishop has said he is not in communion with the Anglican Church in North America. Thus, the ACNA and the several dozen other small churches that call themselves Anglican, are not Anglican. Nevertheless, for the sake of the survey, Pew considered these respondents as Anglicans.

The study divided its questions into four broad areas: demography, religion, politics, and society.

Thus, how do the two groups, "Episcopalians" (TEC) and "Anglicans" (A) compare in these four categories? (find Episcopalians here ; find Anglicans here .)

DEMOGRAPHY

On demographics, the two are quite similar. Both are aging populations. TEC is 35% over the age of 65; A is 33%. The largest group in each was "Baby Boomers." On gender, they are about the same, 55% women in TEC, 56% in A. In education, about the same, both mostly college educated. As for young families, A had a slight edge over TEC, 29% to 21%. There is no significant difference between TEC and A in the make-up of the populations.

RELIGION

There are noticeable, but not great differences on issues concerning personal beliefs and practices. Anglican respondents tended to attend church more often (29% weekly in TEC) (41% weekly in A) and to see the Bible as more important. As for sources of guidance in life, "common sense" came in first place on both sides (54% in TEC) (44% in A).

On what they believe about "absolute standards of right and wrong," both said it is mostly situational (70% in TEC) (52% in A). Both groups put a lot of faith in Heaven (72% in TEC) (77% in A), but not in Hell (42% in TEC) (55% in A). Thus, Episcopalians and Anglicans are not far apart on religious understandings and practices.

POLITICS

While demographics and religion did not show great differences, political views did.

In terms of party membership, TEC tends to be more Democratic while A is Republican. In TEC, 49% are Democrats and 39% Republicans. In A, 58% are Republicans and 37% Democrats.

On "political ideology," the split was also clear. In TEC, 37% are moderates, 31% conservative, and 29% liberal [note, more conservatives than liberals in TEC] while in A, 50% identify as conservative, 29% as moderate, and 19% as liberal. TEC is roughly divided into thirds on liberal/moderate/conservative while A is conservative. This is a key difference.

On size of the government, both agreed it should be smaller, 56% in TEC, and 64% in A.

A big split comes on the issue of government aid to the poor. In TEC, 55% said it does more good than harm. In A, 64% said it did more harm than good. Clearly, TEC favors government programs to help the poor while A opposes them.

Thus, in politics, there is a significant difference between Episcopalians and Anglicans. Episcopalians are diverse, Anglicans distinctly conservative. Episcopalians support programs for the poor, Anglicans oppose them.

SOCIETY

Episcopalians and Anglicans are surprisingly agreeable on social/cultural issues.

On abortion, both agree it should be legal (79% in TEC) (56% in A).

On homosexuality, both agreed it should be "accepted" (83% in TEC) (67% in A).

On same-sex marriage, both agreed it should be legal (74% in TEC strongly favor/favor) (60% in A strongly favor/favor). These are the most stunning data in the survey. In the entire survey, 53% of all denominations favored s-s marriage. This means the people of ACNA have an above average support for s-s marriage.

The two groups also agreed on regulation of the environment (67% in TEC favor) (54% in A favor).

So, what can we take away from this Pew study in terms of the schisms in the Episcopal Church? Here are my conclusions:

1---The division between Episcopalians and independent Anglicans is basically political. Anglicans tend to be conservative Republicans supporting a conservative economic agenda while Episcopalians tend to be moderate and liberal Democrats who support continued governmental democratization of economics. Politics forms the distinct difference between Episcopalians and independent Anglicans.

2---There is broad agreement between Episcopalians and independent Anglicans on social issues. Both favor rights for women and homosexuals. Most importantly, both clearly favor same-sex marriage.

3---There are significant but not great differences on the way the two groups see religious beliefs, values, and practices with A tending toward more evangelical/fundamentalist stands than TEC.

4---There is no real difference between the two groups on demographics.

Admittedly, this is only one study and we should not make too much of it. However, until we get scientific evidence that shows otherwise, we may assume the Pew study reveals the fundamental differences between the two adversarial groups.

It is true that the Anglican Realignment movement swelling up in the 1990s originated as a political event. The right-wing Institute on Religion and Democracy was devoted to advancing conservative causes and diminishing the Episcopal Church as a significant institution in American society because of its perceived liberal policies. The IRD set up the American Anglican Council in 1996 explicitly to diminish or destroy the Episcopal Church as a national institution. Since the roots of the schismatic movement in the Episcopal Church were political, it should come then as no surprise that "Anglicans" tend to be politically conservative while Episcopalians remain evenly divided.

Under the evolving circumstances in the 1990s and 2000s, the AAC used homosexuality as the wedge issue to push its conservative stance. The Robinson affair in 2003 presented the AAC with a rich opportunity to work on splitting off conservatives from TEC. This trend linked up with Third World Anglican fundamentalism largely coming out of equatorial Africa with its traditionally anti-homosexual-rights cultures. GAFCON emerged in 2008 explicitly to oppose pro-homosexual moves in parts of the Anglican Communion. In 2009, the coalition of GAFCON and American schismatics formed the Anglican Church in North America specifically to be the replacement church for the Untied States in the Anglican Communion. Its charter explicitly opposed rights for homosexuals. 

Thus, there is a split in the "Anglican" community of America over social issues. The leadership adamantly opposes equality for women (women cannot be bishops in ACNA) and equality for and inclusion of homosexual and transgendered people. The Pew study shows that Anglican communicants do not support their leadership's positions on these social issues. Bishop Iker, of Fort Worth, has made a major point of blocking any new bishop in ACNA who supports the ordination of women. The ACNA has already divided up on the issue of women's ordination. There is more division to come. 

The Pew study suggests there is a major internal division in the Anglican community in America. The people-in-the-pews favor rights for women and gays. The leadership opposes this, in fact, has made this the raison d'être of ACNA. In South Carolina, the clergy-leadership imposed on the diocese in 2015 a strict and harsh policy banning same-sex marriage in the diocese and requiring oaths of allegiance.

The Pew study may help us understand what is happening now in South Carolina. The DSC leadership is working hard to identify the schism as a religious event ("It's about God not Gays"). They have conducted numerous high-profile campaigns in the last year in an attempt to frame the schism as a counter revolution to save true religion from the corrupt Episcopal Church. To identify themselves as the religious good guys, they have slammed the TEC side as the religious bad guys. The obvious aim is to keep as many people from returning to TEC as possible. The Church diocese, meanwhile, is framing the schism more as an administrative event, not fundamentally religious in nature. To the Church side, it is a matter of getting back the "returning congregations." The same buildings will have the same liturgies. Only time will tell which side has the greater effect on the communicants. 

In conclusion, the new Pew study suggests a stunning point about the schisms in the Episcopal Church. They were not motivated primarily by religion. The ordinary people saw the breaks as political statements against the great democratic revolution that occurred in America beginning in the 1950s in which the Episcopal Church played a highly visible role. Conservative Republicans began fleeing from the Church in this counter-revolution. The clergy-leaders of the schisms, however, had more than political aims. They wanted to keep traditional understandings of society and so promoted a reactionary stance on women, homosexuals, and the transgendered. The laity and the clergy were not altogether on the same page. This internal division portends trouble down the road for the schismatic movement in America. Schism leads to schism. 

This internal contradiction in ACNA is the great takeaway from the new Pew study.

_______________________________

It would be interesting to have some responses from people on both sides. How do the results of the Pew study correspond to your experiences in the schism? Do you see the schism in SC as mostly political, religious, social, or something else? I would like to hear from you. Email me the thoughts you want to share with the cyberworld.

BISHOP LOVE ACCEPTS RESTRICTIONS

On yesterday, 11 January, Presiding Bishop Michael Curry announced partial restrictions on the Rt. Rev. William Love, bishop of Albany and referred him for possible discipline (see the blog posting here ).

Love responded to this and sent a letter yesterday to his diocese explaining his response. Find a link to the letter here . Love wrote, "I will abide by the restrictions placed on me by the Presiding Bishop during the appeal process." 

Love also declared, "...I do plan to appeal the above disciplinary action taken against me by the Presiding Bishop and in so doing, I will also be challenging the authority and legality of Resolution B012 passed at the 79th General Convention. I have already verbally informed the Presiding Bishop's Office of my plans. This will soon be followed by an official written appeal as required by the Canons."

Thus, Love made two points: accept the partial restriction, and appeal of the restriction (the action and the Resolution). Love said he would challenge the "authority" and "legality" of Resolution B012. He did not explain what this meant. In fact, the Resolution was duly and legally enacted by the General Convention, the governing body of the Episcopal Church. It is legal. It has authority. Therefore, what Love means by his "challenge" to the resolution remains to be seen.

There is a crucial point here that must not be missed. It is that the diocese of Albany is showing no overt sign of moving to schism. Quite the opposite, the bishop is adhering to Church discipline. This is the opposite of what happened in South Carolina in 2012. Of course, this does not necessarily mean Albany might not move to schism in the future. However, in the first five cases, by the point of the discipline where Love is now, the schisms had already occurred for all practical purposes. The big question now is exactly where Love intends to go in his appeal of the disciplinary action and the "challenge" to a resolution that is legal and authoritative. Perhaps he will inform us of what he has in mind along this line.

BREAKING NEWS,

PRESIDING BISHOP 
PARTIALLY RESTRICTS
BISHOP LOVE

News broke today that Presiding Bishop Michael Curry has placed a partial restriction on the Bishop of Albany, the Rt. Rev. William Love, and has referred him for possible disciplinary action. Last month Love informed his diocese that he was keeping in place his ban on same-sex marriage rites in the diocese of Albany in defiance of the 2018 General Convention's Resolution B012.

Curry announced today that he has taken three actions concerning Love (find Curry's document here ):

1-[Love] "is forbidden from participating in any manner in the Church's disciplinary process in the Diocese of Albany in any manner regarding any member of the clergy that involves the issue of same-sex marriage."

2-"Nor shall he [Love] participate in any other matter that has or may have the effect of penalizing in any way any member of the clergy or laity or worshipping congregation of his Diocese for their participation in the arrangements for or participation in a same-sex marriage in his Diocese or elsewhere."

3-"Bishop Love's conduct in this regard may constitute a canonical offense" (under the canons of the church) "and that conduct has been referred to the Rt. Rev. Todd Ousley, Bishop for Pastoral Development and Intake Officer for disciplinary matters involving bishops."

What this means in a nutshell is that Curry has trumped Love's rejection of B012 in the diocese of Albany, has opened up Albany to B012, and has referred Love to the proper officer for possible discipline.

Mary Frances Schjonberg of Episcopal News Service issued today a detailed and informative article about all of this, so I will not repeat what she says. Read her excellent report here .

The big question now is how the diocesan authorities in the diocese of Albany will react to Curry's actions of today. In the schism of South Carolina, the diocesan authorities (bishop, chancellor, standing committee) prepared ahead of time a secret plan to "disassociate" the diocese from the Episcopal Church if the national church took any action of any kind against Bishop Lawrence (who had recently flagrantly disregarded the Dennis Canon). Thus, when Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori telephoned Lawrence at noon on Monday, Oct. 15, 2012, and told him she was placing a restriction on him as per the canons of the church, Lawrence did not protest. He knew what this meant. Jefferts Schori did not know. As soon as he hung up the phone, he called the chancellor and standing committee and all agreed their secret plan of schism had been triggered. Two days later, on Oct. 17, the diocesan spokespersons announced to the world that the diocese had "disassociated" from the Episcopal Church.

Thus, the next few days will be crucial in the affairs of the diocese of Albany. If there is a secret plan there, as in SC, it will appear. Of course, they may be some other variety of work going on in preparation of a schism; or, there could be no preparation at all. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, this is a stunning development in Episcopal Church history. Times have changed since the case of SC in 2012. One may ask, what did not the national church take stronger action against Lawrence before the schism? I do not know of any documentary evidence that addresses this issue specifically. The reluctance, though, was, and remains, entirely obvious. We can only surmise from the events that the church gave the diocese of South Carolina great leeway in a vain attempt to prevent a fifth schism. It was appeasement; and like all appeasements was bound to fail. Appeasement only emboldens the aggressor. The SC diocesan authorities set a trap for the presiding bishop who blindly walked right into it. By the time she knew what hit her, the schism was an accomplished fact. So, perhaps Curry has learned a lesson. Instead of appeasing Love, he is snapping the trap on him first.

Stay tuned. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see what happens next in the diocese of Albany. Will Love submit to the discipline of the church, or will he lead a march out of the church?

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, January 11

In case anyone missed it, I am reprinting this Letter to the Editor that appeared recently in The State newspaper. Find it on the newspaper's website here . 

__________________________________

To the Editor

In 2012, many in the Diocese of South Carolina broke away from The Episcopal Church, taking the property and filing a lawsuit to that end.

In August 2017, the S.C. Supreme Court ruled that all church property belonged to The Episcopal Church and its local diocese. The Episcopal Church is hierarchical; property is held in trust for the national church---unlike churches in a congregational structure, which hold their property free and clear. Members of hierarchical churches are free to leave, but not with the property. The First Amendment grants religious bodies freedom to govern themselves as they see fit.

The court denied the breakaway group's petition for a rehearing. The U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear the matter.

A confusing hearing took place in Orangeburg on Nov. 19. If the state Supreme Court decision is discarded, the status of other hierarchical churches across the state will be in grave jeopardy---e.g., Presbyterian Church USA, United Methodist, AME and others.

Eve Pinckney, 

Okatie

________________________________

Thanks to Eve Pinckney for this. It summarizes well the present legal situation in the schism. It is important to remind ourselves of the essentials at hand as we await the courts' imminent actions.

"STRONG POSSIBILITY" 

OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST 

THE BISHOP OF ALBANY

The bishop of Albany, the Rt. Rev. William Love, has advised his flock that he may well be examined by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops because of his defiance of the 2018 General Convention's Resolution B012. 

On December 10, 2018, Love posted "A Christmas Message..." to the diocese (find it here ). It included this paragraph:

As I write to you, I don't know what the future holds. There is a strong possibility that I may be facing Title IV disciplinary proceedings for my unwillingness to abide by General Convention Resolution B012. As I stated in the Pastoral Letter, it was "not out of mean-spiritedness, hatred, bigotry, judgmentalism, or homophobia" that I have taken the actions that I have, "but rather out of love---love for God and His Word; love for the Episcopal Church and wider Anglican Communion; love for each of you my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, especially love for those who are struggling with same-sex attractions." Whatever the outcome, I trust and believe that God will use it for His purposes and the benefit of His Church and people.

As one will recall, Resolution B012 moved from the diocesan bishop to the parish rector the discretion over whether to allow same-sex weddings in a parish. The resolution called for alternative ecclesiastical authority in dioceses where the bishops opposed s-s marriage rites. This removed the power of a bishop to prevent s-s weddings in his or her diocese. It went into effect in the Episcopal Church on the first Sunday in Advent, 2018. 

Before the enactment date, Love sent a pastoral letter to his diocese rejecting Resolution B012 and ordering the continuation of his standing policy, a blanket ban on s-s marriage rites in the diocese of Albany. Love was one of eight diocesan bishops, out of 109 who refused to allow s-s weddings in his or her diocese. To my knowledge, he is the only one to refuse the enactment of B012.

There are two problems with Love's paragraph given above. In the first place, it is homophobic to say people struggle with same-sex attractions. Homosexuality is not a disease that people struggle against, as cancer, diabetes, or a host of other disorders. It is a God-given state of nature. Secondly, it is not affirmation for the Episcopal Church that drives a bishop to deny his or her ordination vows of loyalty to the church. It is a judgment that the church is wrong and this one bishop alone knows the will of the Holy Spirit.

Under the canons of the Episcopal Church, communicants of the diocese of Albany may make a presentment against Love claiming he has abandoned the Church by refusing to accept a resolution of the Church's governing parliament, the General Convention. A bishop does not have the right to nullify a decision of the Church in his or her diocese any more than a state has a right to overrule a law of Congress in that state. The Disciplinary Board for Bishops would then be required to consider the evidence the presenters offered and vote on whether the bishop had abandoned the Episcopal Church. If no, the bishop is cleared. If yes, the presiding bishop is required to restrict the bishop under charge. This removes him or her from ministry pending a resolution of the issue. The resolution may come in two ways, a letter of the bishop to the presiding bishop offering an explanatory defense, or a decision by the House of Bishops. If it is the first case, the presiding bishop has the discretion of accepting the letter, removing the restriction and restoring the bishop to his full authority. If it is the second case, the House of Bishops would vote to acquit or to convict and remove the individual as a bishop.

The situation in Albany today is quite a contrast to what happened in South Carolina. While one may disagree with Love's policy, one must respect his procedures. He is up front saying what he is doing and why he is doing it. He is taking personal responsibility for the whole issue. He is acknowledging the issue at stake. I for one have considerable appreciation and admiration for Love in his approach. None of this was true in South Carolina where the bishop tried to pretend the schism was necessary because of theology and only recently publicly admitted he left the Church because of sexuality. Also in SC, the diocesan leadership promoted a long-term scenario of victimization, that the bishop was the innocent victim of malevolent forces from off. It was "us" against "them." In his recent speaking tour, the bishop repeated the "target on the back" theme. The diocesan leaders promoted the fantastic claim that it was the Church that caused the schism in SC. Too, the bishop hid behind the standing committee, advising them they had the right to disassociate the diocese from the Church. When the committee unanimously passed a secret resolution of conditional disaffiliation, the bishop could claim it was the work of the constituted authorities rather than himself. The preponderance of evidence shows the schism in South Carolina was the secretly premeditated work of the diocesan leadership including the bishop.  Therefore, I find what Love is doing now in Albany strikingly different that what we saw in South Carolina.

In my opinion, Love is making the wrong policy but following the right procedures. In contrast, the leadership of SC followed the wrong policy under the wrong procedures. The colossal mistake of this came home to roost in the South Carolina supreme court decision that demolished both the wrong-headed policy and the procedure. The schism in SC has been a huge and tragic failure. Certainly, Bishop Love in Albany is well-aware of this. If not, I will be glad to send him a copy of my history of the schism in SC.

Where all this goes in Albany is open to question now. My guess is that communicants will present a case to the DBB against Love on the charge of abandonment of the communion. The DBB will then have to decide if nullification rises to the level of abandonment. In the second case of Bishop Lawrence (he was examined by the DBB twice), the DBB voted that the bishop had indeed abandoned the communion because of his willful, sweeping disregard of the Dennis Canon. No doubt, presiding bishop Michael Curry will try to settle all of this by quiet compromise. Good luck with that. PB Jefferts Schori bent over backwards to appease Bishop Lawrence and got absolutely nowhere. But then, these two situations are markedly different. Maybe Curry will have a better outcome with an openly frank renegade bishop.

You may be asking if the Diocese of Albany is heading for schism. Will it be the sixth diocese to vote to secede from the Episcopal Church? I am not familiar enough with the internal matters of the diocese to comment on that, but on the surface, I do not see the overt signs of impending schism I saw in South Carolina. From the limited amount I know, it appears this is primarily a personal protest of a bishop against his church. If there are indeed hidden institutional movements within the diocese to prepare for a schism, perhaps the members of the diocese could inform us of them. 

Getting back to basics, people like Love and Lawrence need to understand that the Episcopal Church worked out over a half-century equality for and inclusion of homosexual and transgendered persons. I for one see this as the work of the Holy Spirit. I for one see this as a tremendous success for human rights. I understand that others may not agree and that is fine. What is not fine is that they want to change the rules of the game after they have lost. If one vows to adhere to an institution, one is honor bound to support that institution or to resign from it.



NOTE. For more information on the effects of B012, see the excellent article in Episcopal News Service here . 

WINTER

Epiphany has passed. The holidays are over. The kids are back in school. My granddaughter has gone back to California. Life is getting back to "normal" in the new calendar year. 

So, where do we stand in view of the schism? As far as I know, there is nothing new to report. We are waiting on the two courts to act. Judge Dickson, of the circuit court, is supposedly considering the DSC motion for judgment on the state supreme court decision. When he will make a decision about anything is anyone's guess. Judge Gergel, in the federal court, has not announced a change of his schedule for trial in March. My prediction is that both of these judges will come down on the side of the Episcopal Church, Dickson because he has no choice but to implement the SCSC decision, and Gergel because of hierarchy and the Constitution. Right now, it is just a waiting game. Waiting, waiting. But then, this schism has been going on longer than any of us wants to recall. Waiting is not new.

While waiting, at least we can walk around the garden and see that all is well in God's wondrous creation, even in the "dead of winter," that really is not dead at all, just the opposite. 

Camellias. Life would be so much duller in the winter without this plant, the queen of the southern garden, my all time number one favorite shrub. There are countless varieties. Plant any one in some shade, provide acidic fertilizer and she will reward you in immeasurable wonder and beauty for very many years, even decades, to come. Every southern yard should have camellias, the winter roses. These pictures were made today, sunny and 70 degrees.

"Professor Sargent" camellia. One of the best choices, blooms prolifically for months with flower clusters.

"Winter's Fire Ice Angels" camellia, reliable in mid-winter.

"Governor Mouton" camellia is another southern favorite, for good reason.

 Loropetalum (Chinese Fringe Bush) is an excellent garden shrub. We have had a relatively mild winter so far. This one usually blooms from frost to frost.

Overlooking much of the garden. In this space is an eclectic collection of 700 plants of all sorts, some evergreen some not. This is my favorite spot for meditation. Behind the picture is a flow of water around the back of the lot offering the sound of a waterfall.

Even though winter is here, there is life all around us. It is there, waiting to be found. Even though the schism is the winter of our discontent, it too is not without grace and life. Moreover, we must not be dismayed by the darkness. As the season of winter will end in the garden, the season of winter will end in the terrible tragedy of the schism. The universe is, after all, the work of a force infinitely greater than ourselves. When you doubt that, go sit in a garden for a few minutes.

OLD YEAR, NEW YEAR
2nd Edition

OLD YEAR

One calendar year is about to come to a close and another is about to start. This is a good time to reflect on the status of the schism, where we have been in the last twelve months and where we might be going in the next twelve. We are now in the seventh year of the schism (sigh). It started on October 15, 2012 (we were all much younger then). We are about to begin the seventh year of litigation between the two sides. The law suits began on January 4, 2013 (painful to recall). Weariness, exhaustion. This is what I hear the most from people on both sides. When will this end? How much longer? And, where is God? Why does not He stop this disaster and bring peace? This is the unspoken sentiment I sense coming from people often too. These are all good questions. They are all valid. They should all be embraced with all of the emotions they may evoke. It is best to get things out in the open. Wounds heal quicker in fresh air.

We have turned the corner in the history of the schism. The most significant event of the year 2018 was the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of cert. This meant the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017 is the final law of the land. It cannot be changed or appealed. It must be enforced by the lower court. That decision gave the bulk of the prize to the Episcopal Church by recognizing Church control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question, plus Camp St. Christopher.

In the past year, the two sides reacted to the SCSC decision strongly but, of course, entirely differently.


THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA:

The DSC strategy is to deny and delay, first to deny that the decision says what it says and secondly to delay its implementation even if it says what it says. This is called offensive defense. And so, DSC has been on the offensive all year long against the decision and its beneficiary, the Episcopal Church.

DSC leaders carried out contradictory moves throughout the year. On one hand, they told their followers they need not worry about losing the properties because the diocesan lawyers would throw up roadblocks in court to prevent TEC from seizing the churches for many years to come. On the other hand, they carried out a campaign to move communicants out of the buildings into quarters elsewhere. 

DSC leaders combined plans for relocation with a fierce demonization of the Episcopal Church, to prod their faithful with a place to move and a reason to move. Efforts of emotional manipulation and brainwashing swept the diocese. On December 1, 2017, the DSC leaders released a secret plan to move congregations out of their buildings to meeting places elsewhere (see my blog piece on this here .) 

DSC's attack on the Episcopal Church was particularly intense. To be sure, it was nothing new. As early as 2013, Bishop Lawrence had called TEC "the spiritual forces of evil." This is still up on the DSC website. Find it here (p.2, lower left). In March, April, and May of 2018, DSC leaders conducted two "teaching" campaigns in St. Michael's and St. Philip's churches to convince parishioners that TEC had abandoned the true faith, and therefore any return to TEC would amount to abandonment of the true faith (see my blog post on this here ). At an ACNA conference in Birmingham and in an address of Kendall Harmon, the speakers seem to imply that TEC was a "pagan" religion.

DSC's bitter denunciation of the Episcopal Church took a definite turn in intensity after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected DSC's appeal of the SCSC decision, on June 11. With this, it was clear that TEC would regain control over the 29 parishes. It was just a matter of time. In order for DSC to remain a viable entity, it would have to create new congregations out of the old parishes. The SCSC decision left it with just six local churches. Hence, the vitriol arose.

The highlight, or lowlight as the case may be, of DSC's public relations campaign against TEC was Bishop Lawrence's tour of the diocese from July 31 to August 9, with stops in Sumter, Walterboro, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, and James Island. About a thousand communicants of DSC attended. The obvious aim of the swing was to strengthen the emotional bond between the people and their bishop. On this, it succeeded. He portrayed himself as the innocent victim, emphasized the us against them dichotomy, and declared there would be no reconciliation. However, he subtly promoted contradictory themes telling the people on the one hand the SCSC decision was unenforceable, and on the other people should not be attached to their buildings.

At this moment, we cannot discern the effects of the contradictory themes. However, more than one parish has announced that it is no longer raising money to pay lawyers. Meanwhile, rumors have been flying that numerous DSC parishes are actively looking for meeting places in exile. Apparently, some DSC parishes are proceeding under the secret Template of Dec. 1, 2017 for relocation.


THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA:

TEC and TECSC are looking for the implementation of the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017. They are awaiting Judge Dickson's orders for the return of the 29 parishes and Camp. They have proposed to the judge to name a Special Master and to appoint an accounting firm to expedite the SCSC decision.

In the federal court, they succeeded in getting the trustees of DSC and the DSC local churches included as defendants in the case. Just last week, they asked Judge Gergel for a summary judgment in favor of TEC/TECSC and against DSC.

Another important event in 2018 was the failure of the court-ordered mediation process that began in October of 2017. In January and February it became clear the mediation had gained nothing, and on February 14, Gergel lifted the stay he had imposed on the case pending the mediation.

NEW YEAR

Having looked at what happened in the year past, what can we reasonably expect to develop in the year ahead?

Circuit court Judge Dickson is unpredictable. He has had the case for nearly a year and has done nothing about it but gather arguments. He has indicated the SCSC decision is unclear and uncertain even though the last page of the decision spells out precisely and concisely the three decisions of the high court. Moreover, he has taken up only one of the six motions/petitions before him. Therefore, anyone's guess of what Dickson will do and when he will do it is as good as mine. I do wonder at this point if he is waiting for guidance upon the ruling of the federal court. Otherwise I have no understanding of why he is delaying this case.

Federal court Judge Gergel is much more predictable. We can expect expeditious attention to this case this year. The TEC/TECSC side submitted its request for summary judgment on Dec. 7. The DSC lawyers responded by filing a flood of papers with Gergel, all nonsensical in my opinion. As I understand it, Gergel may either hold a hearing or go straight to the trial he has already targeted for March 2019. Either way, I expect we will get decisive action soon and a resolution of this case in 2019. Odds are that the Church side will prevail in federal court mainly because of two main factors: -the hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church, and 2-the First Amendment separation of church and state. I expect Judge Gergel to grant TEC/TECSC all of their requests although this may not come until after the trial. 

There is a major "however" in both of these courts. The decision of both judges can be appealed, the circuit court to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the federal court to the United States Court of Appeals, in Richmond. Even so, I see no reason why the Church cannot repossess the properties, assuming the judgments are favorable, and proceed with the restoration of the old diocese even during the appeals. If so, there is a good chance that the 29 parishes will return to Episcopal Church control in the calendar year of 2019. 

Although there is still a long way to go before all the litigation ends, it is clear the final outlines of settlement have been made. The Episcopal Church has regained 29 of the 36 parishes in question, plus the Camp. Judge Dickson has no choice but to implement the decision of the state supreme court. Likewise, I think Judge Gergel has no choice but to recognize the Church as hierarchical and therefore entitled to determine its own government. 

So, where does this leave the two sides? Both will be in much weaker conditions with difficult roads ahead. Even as TEC/TECSC "wins" the 29 parishes, it loses many of the communicants, how many we cannot know yet. TECSC will be hard pressed to rebuild these diminished congregations and  make them self-supporting. 

The independent diocese will be in a much worse state with six local parishes and a handful of other parishes and missions. When it loses the entity of the pre-schism diocese, it will have to start from the ground again to rebuild, a highly formidable task given the severe diminution of assets which will occur. A feasible alternative to rebuilding is to melt the present DSC into the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas under Bishop Steve Wood, at St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. Bishop Lawrence, soon to be 69 years old, could retire and go off into the sunset to live comfortably. The DSC leaders could still claim a victory of a sort by having removed a certain part of the Episcopal diocese. The removed part would still be in ACNA and still committed against equality for and inclusion of homosexuals, transgendered, and women in the life of the church.

I think the two sides should disabuse themselves of some wrong-headed beliefs. TEC/TECSC should not assume the "congregations" in the 29 parishes will return to the Episcopal Church. The parishes will return but many of the people, probably at least half, will leave the buildings rather than return to the Episcopal Church. That is just the reality of the situation that no wishful thinking can change. In time, I expect some of these people will return to their "home" churches, but this may take a long time.

The DSC leaders should drop the unreality that somehow they are going to keep the 29 parishes and the Camp. Most of all they should stop telling their people such. It is cruel to mislead them so. The SCSC decision is the law of the land; and it is not unclear. Just the opposite. It is only a matter of time before TEC regains possession of the 29 parishes, the Camp, and the legal entity of the old diocese. The assertions that DSC is going to keep any of this are just far from true.

The DSC leaders are only compounding their mistakes which have been many already. They were given three chances to make out of court settlements and they turned down all of them. And, why they did, we really do not know. They will have to tell us that. Looking back, their biggest mistake was to reject the June 2015 offer from the Episcopal Church to swap the parishes (to DSC) for the diocese (to TEC). If the DSC had accepted this, all of the 36 parishes in the lawsuit would now be permanently independent of TEC and sole owners of their local properties. Instead, 29 of them now are returning to trust control and physical control of TEC.

Let's be frank and honest here. The schism has been a failure. The DSC authorities led their people to believe they could leave the Episcopal Church and take the properties of the diocese and the parishes with them. The SCSC has proved them wrong. The DSC faithful are now left in the lurch.  

Unfortunately, I think we can expect an acceleration of DSC's bitter attacks against TEC in the year ahead as the courts inevitably move in on the Church side. What we saw in the past year was bad enough, but I am afraid it is going to get worse. The DSC leaders have shown that they will go on to the bitter end doing all they can to prevent TEC from regaining the old diocese, at least the people if not the buildings. No doubt they will increase the pressure on the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes to leave their churches rather than return to the "false teachers" and "pagans."

So, all signs indicate this war is still going on full-fledged and has a long way to go with many more casualties to come. Gettysburg has occurred, but the end of the fighting is still far off. It is just so hard for some people to accept failure. The schism has been, and still is, a disaster for the old diocese of South Carolina. Some people made some bad choices. Unfortunately, the consequences of those wrong-headed choices fell on thousands of innocent people. The schism has been going on for more than six years now, longer than the Civil War, longer than the Second World War. The wounds are open and deep, the pains too real. The destructive effects are pervasive. Nevertheless, what one should focus on now is not the past but the future, not where one has been but where one can go. There are signs of grace all around. There is redemption ahead. There is always new life after a wildfire. There is new life ahead. And, all is because enough people are committed to the two great commandments, love God and love neighbor. With this as the guide, the people of the grand old diocese of South Carolina will find their way home even though the road is still long and hard.

THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT

Memo to the independent Diocese of South Carolina:  the inning is over and the game is about done. You've had three strikes and you're out. Time to accept the reality of loss, as hard as it may be. Strike 1:  the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled on August 2, 2017 that the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina have trust control over 29 parishes, and Camp St. Christopher. Strike 2:  the SCSC rejected DSC's request for rehearing and, with reprimand, recusal of Justice Kaye Hearn. Strike 3:  the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the SCSC decision, even to put it on the short list.

What we have seen since the third strike, of last June, is the loser arguing with the umpires that the calls were wrong. It won't work. Argue all one wants, the result will remain the same. The horse is out of the barn, the train has left the station, the toothpaste is out of the tube, insert whatever image you wish here.

In the circuit court appearance, of last month, the DSC tactic was to sow confusion about the SCSC decision. When one does not have clarity on one's side, muddy the waters. This roil the waters ploy may work in the short run, as it is apparently doing with Judge Dickson, but it will not work in the long run. Dickson has no choice but to implement the SCSC decision which has three precise and concise directions in its conclusion. It is unthinkable that a circuit court judge would dare to refuse to enforce a state supreme court decision, even more inconceivable that he would re-litigate the case. It's not going to happen. Dickson is well-known for his reason and integrity.

Now, in the federal court, the DSC tactic is to inundate the judge with paper. DSC says it submitted 38 motions to Judge Gergel on December 7 (DSC posted 13 on its website. Where are the other 25?). 38 motions at once! (Find links to the papers here .) I have never heard of such a thing. If one does not have quality on one's side, try quantity. If DSC thinks this is going to overwhelm Gergel and throw him off his game, they do not know him. He is famous for his no-nonsense, efficient, fair, and expeditious approach. He is out to get the job done as quickly and correctly as possible. Gergel will not be stymied by DSC's transparent attempt to confuse him.

So, what about the 38 papers of last Friday? It has taken me some time to go over them and try to understand them. Here is what I see. They are ridiculous, amazing in their absurdity. Reading them is trying to make sense of the senseless, reason from the unreasonable. I am astonished at how weak and irrelevant they are. I cannot imagine any judge being favorably impressed with them.

As I read this nonsense, what I see is that the DSC lawyers are trying to convince Judge Gergel that Bishop Lawrence cannot be in violation of the Lanham Act because the terms in question are all "generic," e.g., "episcopal." While arguing this, they are operating from their pre-SCSC decision stance that the DSC was, and still is, an independent and self-governing entity not subject to the authority of the national Episcopal Church. In fact, the SCSC has already overruled this. They said the Episcopal Church is hierarchical and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina is the heir of the pre-schism diocese.

In spite of all the DSC lawyers' tactics of obsfucation by clouds of fog and deluges of paper, the issue at hand in the courts is really clear and simple:  Is the Episcopal Church hierarchical? If it is, it has the right to determine its own internal affairs and is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This would make TECSC the legal Episcopal diocese and Skip Adams the legitimate and legal bishop of the diocese. If it is not, DSC is an independent entity entitled to keep the names, insignia, legal rights, and assets of the old diocese, and Mark Lawrence can go on insisting he is the bishop of the Episcopal diocese.

So, the basic question at hand before the courts is whether the Episcopal Church is hierarchical. Judge Weston Houck, who handled the federal case before Gergel, declared that TEC was hierarchical. The majority of the justices of the SCSC said TEC was hierarchical, and made it clear that TECSC is the heir of the pre-schism diocese.

No doubt Judge Dickson will recognize this once he blows away the fog of confusion and realizes that he has no choice as a judge but to carry out the SCSC decision. In every likelihood, Judge Gergel will follow Houck's and the SCSC justices' lead and declare TEC to be hierarchical. That will leave him no choice as a federal judge but to side with TEC.

The people of DSC should recognize the reality that the game is over, as much as they might not want to do so. Things do not always work out the way we think they are going to, and sometimes that hurts, maybe a lot. The courts have ruled in favor of TEC. What is left is just clean-up, that is, putting into effect what the courts have already decided.

Three strikes and you're out. Judges Dickson and Gergel are bound to bring this unfortunate game to a close, and I expect sooner rather than later. Gergel has set the trial in his courtroom for two and a half months from now. The expectation is he will wrap this up asap.

I suppose these 38 papers are the best the DSC lawyers can do under the circumstances, but they really have already lost these cases. Nevertheless, if this is the best they can do, the trial will be no contest. Odds are strong that TECSC will regain full ownership of the old diocese by right of hierarchy and the Constitution, and will do so in the near future.

My point is, we have passed the crisis in the legal war. The end is in sight even if it is still far on the horizon. This man-made madness will end one day. I say the sooner the better. Enough already. 

CHURCH LAWYERS SEEK END

OF FEDERAL CASE

On Friday, December 7, 2018, attorneys of the Episcopal Church and its diocese, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, filed papers in the United States District Court, in Charleston, supporting their request to Judge Richard Gergel for a summary judgment favoring the Church side in the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. The TECSC document is "Memorandum of Law in Support of Bishop vonRosenberg, Bishop Adams, and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's Motion for Summary Judgment." Find it here . The TEC paper is "Plaintiff-in-Intervention the Episcopal Church's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment." Find it here .

The federal case originated on March 5, 2013, when Charles vonRosenberg, bishop provisional of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, entered a suit against Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, charging that Lawrence was in violation of the Lanham Act, a federal act protecting trademarks. He said Lawrence was pretending to be the Episcopal bishop even though he had left the Episcopal Church. In essence, this suit asked the federal court to declare the Church diocese to be the legal heir of the pre-schism diocese instead of the secessionist diocese which was still using the names and controlling the assets of the entity of the old diocese.

As this non-lawyer understands it, the litigation that has been going on for nearly six years now follows two streams, state court and federal court. The state court dealt mainly which who owned the local churches. The federal dealt mainly with who owned the entity of the old diocese. The state court has finished in the SCSC decision that recognized TEC/TECSC trust control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question. We are waiting on Judge Dickson to implement the decision. The federal court has yet to rule. Its ruling will boil down to whether it sees the Episcopal Church as hierarchical or congregational, that is whether sovereignty rests in the church as a whole or in its individual parts. TEC says it rests in the whole, DSC says in the local parts. The secessionists' position all along has been that the diocese is sovereign and self-governing. They claim the diocese left TEC intact and is the Episcopal diocese even though it is not in the Episcopal Church. The Church's position all along has been that the diocese is under authority of the national Church. It cannot act contrary to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. What the federal case boils down to is whether the secessionist diocese or the Church diocese is the true heir of the pre-schism diocese. This would include names, marks, insignia, legal rights, and property, as diocesan headquarters and the bishop's residence. 

As I read Friday's two memoranda, the Church is basing its new appeal to Judge Gergel largely on the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017. In this, the majority of justices declared the Episcopal Church to be hierarchical and the Church diocese to be the true heir of the old diocese. The SCSC decision is final having been denied rehearing and refusal of cert by the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, the Church lawyers are asking Gergel to act on part of the SCSC decision. 

Other points the TECSC lawyers emphasized were:   ---the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the civic state from interfering in the internal affairs of a religious body,  ---TECSC is the beneficiary of the trust of the old diocese including its assets,  ---the independent diocese is in violation of trademark laws and false advertising. In conclusion, the lawyers wrote, "The public confusion resulting from Defendants' conduct is pervasive. It is undeniably causing irreparable harm to The Episcopal Church, and more locally, to TECSC and its Bishops. All that the Plaintiffs seek in this action is declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages (for which they could easily make a case). They have been asking for relief since this action was initiated in 2013. Respectfully, this Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment and award them the relief to which they are entitled." Note that the lawyers emphasized they want only a declaratory judgment, in favor of TEC, and an injunction, against Lawrence. They are not asking for damages. 

The second paper, from the national Church lawyers, follows along the same lines of argument, and, at 42 pages, adds a great deal of detail supporting the charges of damaging trademark infringement and confusion. The lawyers spent an enormous amount of time and effort presenting an apparently exhaustive listing of evidence supporting the Church's arguments. It is impressive.

An item of interest to everyone is in the TECSC memorandum on page 17. Here we find an official list, from the Church diocese, of the local parishes that are under trust control of the Church, those that are not and the others. 

THE 29 PARISHES UNDER TEC/TECSC TRUST:

1. All Saints, Florence

2. Christ/St. Paul's, Yonges Island

3. Church of the Cross, Bluffton

4. Church of the Holy Comforter, Sumter

5. Church of the Redeemer, Orangeburg

6. Holy Trinity, Charleston

7. St. Luke's, Hilton Head

8. St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville

9. St. David's, Cheraw

10. St. James, Charleston

11. St. Paul's, Bennettsville

12. Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Charleston

13. Church of Our Saviour, Johns Island

14. Church of the Epiphany, Eutawville

15. Church of the Good Shepherd, Charleston

16. Church of the Holy Cross, Stateburg

17. Church of the Resurrection, Surfside

18. St. Philip's, Charleston

19. St. Michael's, Charleston

20. St. Jude's, Walterboro

21. St. Helena's, Beaufort

22. St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte

23. St. Paul's, Summerville

24. Trinity Church, Myrtle Beach

25. Trinity Church, Edisto

26. Trinity Church, Pinopolis

27. Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant

28. St. John's, Johns Island

29. St. Andrew's, Charleston (Old St. Andrew's)

THE 7 PARISHES OUTSIDE THE TRUST:

1. Christ the King, Waccamaw

2. St. Matthew's, Darlington

3. St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant

4. St. John's, Florence

5. St. Matthias, Summerton

6. St. Paul's, Conway

7. Prince George Winyah, Georgetown

THE LOCAL CHURCHES TO BE DETERMINED:

---Barnwell,   Holy Apostles

---Blackville,   St. James

---Berkeley County,   Strawberry Chapel

---Charleston,   St. Alban's Chapel

---Charleston,   St. Andrew's Mission

---Charleston,   St. John's Mission

---Dillon,   St. Barnabas

---Florence,   Christ Church

---Goose Creek,   St. James

---Grahamville,   Holy Trinity

---Hagood,   Ascension

---Marion,   Church of the Advent

---Myrtle Beach,   Church by the Well

---North Myrtle Beach,   Grace

---Orangeburg,   St. Paul's

---Cane Bay,   St. Timothy's

---Walterboro,   Atonement

---Sullivans Island,   Church of the Holy Cross

As I understand it, the lawyers will examine the records of the "to be determined" local churches to see if they acceded to the Dennis Canon and therefore fall under trust control of the Episcopal Church diocese. Thus, there are three categories of local churches now in DSC: those under TEC/TECSC trust, those outside the trust, and those to be determined at some time in the future.

I cannot tell you what happens next in the ongoing litigation. I suppose the Lawrence side lawyers will present counter-memoranda to Judge Gergel in opposition to the Dec. 7 papers of the Church side. As far as anyone knows, Gergel is still on track to hold the trial in his court in March of next year. However, I do not know what would stop him, before then, from granting the Church side's petitions for expeditious summary judgment in their favor.

Meanwhile, there has been no word from Judge Edgar Dickson, in the state, circuit, court. I am beginning to wonder if he is waiting on the federal judge to rule before he makes a ruling. Dickson has had the case before him for nearly a year now and has made no decision. All he has done is pile up arguments, written and oral, from the two sides. His desk must be overflowing with papers. 

My best guess is that as the next act in this drama attorney Alan Runyan will present counter-arguments to Judge Gergel soon. 

Whatever happens, I will relay the news as I can.


See also the press release from TECSC concerning the Dec. 7 court memoranda. Find it here.

"TEAR THIS BUILDING DOWN"

An infamous, idiotic quote from the Vietnam war was, "We had to destroy the village to save it." This oxymoron is still called "the Vietnam Syndrome." This attitude of destroy to save is apparently emerging in the independent diocese as the 29 parishes await the inevitable transition to their legal owners, the Episcopal Church and its diocese. The preacher at St. Philip's Church recently prayed to God to destroy the building rather than have it fall to "the false teachers," i.e., the Episcopal Church.

The Rev. Andrew O'Dell preached a sermon entitled, "Not One Stone will be Left" to the congregation of St. Philip's on Nov. 18, 2018. It is available on audio here . Go to the 20 minute mark to hear O'Dell praying to God, on behalf of the people, as he said:

If this building is to be handed over to the kind of false teachers you have warned us about, tear this building down wall by wall, pillar by pillar, stone by stone, until it is nothing but rubble lest it be used to lead men astray.

In other words, destroy the church to save it. This kind of thinking is as idiotic and cruel today as it was all those years ago in the helpless little villages of Vietnam. It is shocking, but it is the low state of affairs where we find ourselves today in the tragic schism in South Carolina. Apparently there are people who seriously want the church buildings destroyed rather than have the Episcopal Church bishop resume control over them. This is mind-boggling. To what have we descended?

The theme of O'Dell's sermon was to compare St. Philip's iconic church building to the Temple in Jerusalem in Jesus' day. As Jesus warned his followers not to rely on buildings, O'Dell suggested the church building could be an "idol." And, as Jesus had said to his disciples, "See that no one leads you astray," one should "beware of false teachers, false shepherds, false prophets, false gospels." These are all well-known code words for the Episcopal Church among the breakaways. 

After praying to God to destroy the building rather than letting it fall into the hands of "false teachers" [the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E.], O'Dell went on to offer a deal to God, let us keep the building and we will "draw people back to you." 

There is so much disappointing with this, I do not know where to start. Mostly, it makes me very sad, not surprised, but still profoundly sad. We do not promote ourselves by diminishing others. Quite the opposite. I ache for anyone who would harbor hardness and bitterness in his or her heart, particularly against his old family. Anyway, this is not what Christianity is supposed to be about. It is about love, love of God, love of neighbor. It is not about demonizing others.

Actually, O'Dell's thoughts and words fall right into line with what we have heard coming from the leadership of the Lawrence diocese for the past year, since the state supreme court refused to rehear the church case. All along we have heard terms as false gospel, false teachers, evil, pagan, among others. Of course, the point of all this offensive fusillade against the Episcopal Church is to prepare the congregations of the 29 parishes the court recognized as under the Episcopal Church to leave their cherished church homes and meet elsewhere as DSC congregations. Obviously, the DSC clergy are stepping up the psychological pressure on their people. It looks to me as if they are making it as hard as possible for anyone to stay in the buildings when they return to the Church. I expect we will see more and more of this hysterical tactic in the months to come no doubt reaching a crescendo at the moment the occupiers have to hand over the keys to the owners.

I would say to the Rev. O'Dell and the other DSC clergy, the people of the old pre-schism diocese should not be enemies. They should be friends. They all follow the same Lord. They all say the same liturgies. They are all in the same boat. No one has a monopoly on God. And, stop and think of what you are doing to the communicants whose ancestors from generation upon generation form the great cloud of witnesses in that grand, old sacred space of St. Philip's and whose bones are beyond the walls. Think about them. Do not the descendants have every right to cherish their building as they cherish their love of God? Of course they do. And, what right does anyone have to tell them to break the bonds of affection to their church home? Moreover, one should take care in speaking for God who works in mysterious ways, not man's ways; and I doubt seriously God, the great "I AM," would ever do deals offered by mere mortals although I am sure everyone of us has tried in our Job-like moments of desperation.

Remember, when all the madness of the schism is over, we should all be able to say we did the right things and for the right reasons. Above all, we must all be able to say we did our best to love God and our neighbor. 


NOTE: For 74 photos of St. Philip's Episcopal Church, Charleston, see the Yelp website here .